but he decides nothing directly | Dr. Westcott omits the “Cf.” as to the time of Ignatius’ | martyrdom.] | | 7.  “Hilgenfeld, Die ap.  Vaeter, | Hilgenfeld, Die ap.  Vaeter, p. 214 p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld | ff.  Hilgenfeld strongly supports points out the objections to the | Baur’s argument which is referred to narrative in the Acts of the | above, and while declaring the Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more refers to the period between | especially the journey to Rome, Eusebius and Jerome:  setting | incredible, he considers the mere aside this detailed narrative he | fact that Ignatius suffered considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding of the general statements in the | which the possibility has been made letters.  The mode of punishment | out.  He shows [97:1] that the by a provincial governor causes | martyrology states the 20th some difficulty:  ‘bedenklicher,’ | December as the day of Ignatius’ he continues, ’ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were andre Punct, die Versendung nach | buried at Antioch, where they still Rom.’  Why was the punishment not | were in the days of Chrysostom and carried out at Antioch?  Would it | Jerome.  He argues from all that is be likely that under an Emperor | known of the reign and character of like Trajan a prisoner like | Trajan, that such a sentence from Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite fight in the amphitheatre?  The | unsupported and inconceivable.  A circumstances of the journey as | provincial Governor might have described are most improbable. | condemned him ad bestias, but in The account of the persecution | any case the transmission to Rome itself is beset by difficulties. | is more doubtful.  He shows, Having set out these objections | however, that the whole story is he leaves the question, casting | inconsistent with historical facts, doubt (like Baur) upon the whole | and the circumstances of the history, and gives no support to | journey incredible.  It is the bold affirmation of a | impossible to give even a sketch of martyrdom ’at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over December, A.D. 115.’” | five long pages, but although | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer | to the theory of the martyrdom in | Antioch itself, his reasoning | forcibly points to that conclusion, | and forms part of the converging | trains of reasoning which result in | that “demonstration” which I | assert.  I will presently make use | of some of his arguments.

At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows: